Andy9o8

Can you help me out here? My quick Google search hasn't yet found a concise name-by-name list of all these people, in which each person's party is identified. I'm curious to know how many of them are Democrats. Any at all? I rather see the list of those who DON'T think he should resign. I'm pretty sure that list would be more interesting. It would also give us something to confront our own Senators and Congresspeople on before the next election. I'm not aware of a list of those who've affirmatively said they don't want him to resign; they're simply absent from the list of those who do. My point being, obviously, that this is just standard posturing from the opposition party in a republic; nothing less, but nothing more. Making more of it than it really is, is just silly.

Who can tell? They've sucked-in half of each other's faces. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I love eggs, but now that I'm over 50, I hardly ever eat egg yolks anymore, but have switched over to Egg Beaters at home, egg-white omelets in restaurants, etc. That, by the way, is upon the advice of a cardiologist, so I'll listen to that source first.

But doctors also are responsible for the predictable results of their actions; and, laws and regulations aside, they should be guided by standards of ethics. A doctor who performs certain procedures that are strictly elective - for example, facial or body cosmetic surgery, or fertility procedures, etc., is not required to perform the procedure on every prospective patient that walks into his office. Doctors should treat "the whole patient"; a basic tenet of medical practice is "Do no harm"; and an elective procedure that might be helpful or effect-neutral to one patient might be harmful to another patient's overall life, when viewed from a "whole patient" perspective (including social and/or psychological factors). So before performing the elective procedure - especially a potentially drastic or life-changing one, the prudent and ethical practitioner first does a reasonable assessment of how the procedure might affect the patient, which in part necessarily includes a social and psychological evaluation of the patient. If there's too high a potential for a detrimental effect on the patient's life, I'd argue that the doctor has at the very least an ethical responsibility not just to give the patient "informed consent" counseling, but even to take a pass on taking the patient's case. I'd be curious whether Amy and other medical practitioners on this Forum would agree with this. (I also invite everyone else's opinion on this, too.)

Can you help me out here? My quick Google search hasn't yet found a concise name-by-name list of all these people, in which each person's party is identified. I'm curious to know how many of them are Democrats. Any at all?

Gee, they're all sucking up your trollish spewie. Nicely done.

You're such an amateur. No. You will bow to me.

4 eggs as usual, eh? That smile is your cardiologist thinking about his portfolio.

Please don't do that. This is a skydiving forum, and we don't appreciate people creating screen names to post unrelated advertising spam. (With or without proper grammar) Hopefully your post will be deleted.

The reason is easy. We learn to skydive by being exposed to the freefall environment for extended periods. AFF was developed to give students that exposure from the very first jump. It also allows for instruction and correction during the skydive which dramatically steepens the learning curve. Or as I have always told folks, static line training is like wading around in the shallow end of the pool, while AFF is like jumping into the deep end with a pair of lifeguards by your side. Most people learn faster and better with AFF. Although I'm not an instructor, I've become a fan of 3-element hybrid training, which unfortunately (IMO) most DZs don't offer. 1. 1 or 2 tandems to help get past the big hump of fear and sensory overload, and early intro to canopy control and landing. Less theoretically needed (IMO) when simple round mains were being used, now not a bad idea when students' brain-overloaded first jumps include the higher skill set of piloting and landing a ram-air. 2. A couple S/L or IAD and hop & pops each, to learn the basic skills of saving one's own life after jumping out of an airplane, and basic canopy control and landing - but NOT to over-emphasize freefall stability (beyond the basic arch). Removes the inherent bullshit - the big weakness of the S/L / IAD progression method - of not having enough seconds of time to get your mental shit together, and then to get yourself stable, before it's pull time. ("You didn't arch, and you dumped on your back. Go back up and do it again. And try not to kick this time." Fuck that.) (Also less multi-tasking than is the case in AFF jumps.) 3. Then a few modified AFF jumps to learn basic freefall.

The inertia dampeners I have developed in my basement will make that limitation obsolete. Once the patent is granted, I may license out the technology. For a fee.

OK, let's take a breath, and presume you're speaking metaphorically. She should have to live with the consequences, but not have innocent children suffer. That probably means poverty for her, and quite possibly loss or severe restriction of her parental rights (i.e., moving the children out of her home) so that the children are provided for without her reaping any financial benefit or support, even indirectly. The doctor's conduct might not have been illegal, but he, and his license to practice, are still governed by a code of professional ethics, so he probably deserves to lose his license. Let him make a living as a hospital orderly for a few years.

I was disappointed he didn't reference Hitler.

Well, in another thread, someone re-posted an opinion article about Ron Paul's support of Bradley Manning, ostensibly about the legal issues, but which rather prominently sneered about Manning's homosexuality and cross-dressing 2 or 3 times. So, unfortunately, there is an audience, including in here, that would answer Yes. Oh, P.S.- As if this is the first gay kiss in the long history of naval service, whose universal motto is "Rum, buggery and the lash".

May your afterlife be filled with lawyers.

Fair enough--obscurity for extremism in either direction is a good thing. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! I thought that up myself.

On second thought, I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

Long story short, there's nobody to forward it to that will make any difference. Don't reply to it. That just feeds the troll, and confirms your e-mail address.

(Side note: it was his inaugural address.)

For pete's sake, John, an "NSFW" would be appreciated.

My very un-scientific observation over the years, is that the majority of the most hard-assed attitudes about parenting and discipline I hear or read are expressed by people who've never (or not yet) had any kids of their own. It's not a 1-to-1 correlation, but it's something that stands out pretty prominently every time one of these these "parenting" threads come up in here.

Exactly - which is why debating whether Manning did a valuable public service, or committed a heinous criminal act, addresses the issue, while vilifying him as a sissy-boy faggot does not.

The Canada Free Press is, quite openly, very conservative, so its bias against RP is understandable. But in any event, do you really that this author's agenda in - twice - mentioning Manning's sexuality is, no matter how it's couched (read that phrase carefully), anything other than appealing to the bigotries of gay bashers? If you want to rebut RP's viability on a level that appeals to anything other than a very narrow audience - basically, one that already would never vote for him in the primaries anyway - you'll have to do much more diligent homework than this.

That's your spin of what I said; it's not what I said. I have no patience for that game.

I would sooner plunge a white-hot branding iron into my eyes.